TheLeakingPen t1_is2h8rg wrote
Thing is, there are a lot of variables that none of these studies really account for. The few studies that also collected data on soda and other processed sugary drink usage found that normalizing for sugary drink consumption made the differences in meat and no meat practically vanish.
The other thing is, numbers are scary when you don't understand them. The general number is an increase in 9 percent per serving of red meat per day.
Heart disease impacts about 200 per 100,000 people in the US.
What this means, numerically, is that, lets use the above number as a base. If 200 people per 100,000 that ate no red meat got heart disease, than 218 out of 100,000 people who ate a serving of red meat every day would get heart disease.
Its not, "it gives you a 9 percent chance".
TheCorpseOfMarx t1_is3fs05 wrote
>Heart disease impacts about 200 per 100,000 people in the US.
Where has that number come from? The CDC sates:
"About 20.1 million adults age 20 and older have [Coronary artery disease] (about 7.2%)."
Which would be 7,200 per 100,000...
TheLeakingPen t1_is3weml wrote
hunh, looks like the page i was looking at was specifically deaths, not heart disease in general. my bad.
TheCorpseOfMarx t1_is4o9dx wrote
It's still way off!
>About 697,000 people in the United States died from heart disease in 2020—that’s 1 in every 5 deaths.
TheLeakingPen t1_isccvbq wrote
deaths per total population vs deaths per total deaths.
Also, A. deaths from "heart disease" includes more than just heart attacks.
B. 2020, 21, 22 are outliers. a LOT of heart attacks and circulatory issues related to Covid. Since its a heart attack, they lump it in, but I personally wouldn't unless they had previous heart disease.
TheCorpseOfMarx t1_isciqq8 wrote
Your numbers are clearly way off mate I don't know why you're still pushing this
Dr_Hyde-Mr_Jekyll t1_is4o2tw wrote
Interessting. Source for the studies controlling for sugary drinks etc. ?
triffid_boy t1_is2ko6b wrote
To be honest I think everyone gets the numbers these days.
Public health has to be based on these sorts of calculations... So obviously (blindingly obviously) 18 people per 100k (what's that, about 18,000 across the whole population?) saved would be a good thing.
stopandtime t1_is43sm9 wrote
also with alot of these epidemiological studies they look at correlation, not causation. For example - people who enjoy eating meat are also far more likely to have a unhealthy lifestyle with tobacco/alcohol/no exercise. And with epidemiological studies these confounding factors are extremely hard to control for.
It's the same thing with cholesterol - cholesterol is 100% healthy and the body absolutely needs it, but it is the high sugar/carbohydrates that screws it up for people.
Humans aren't designed to eat grass, and while you can survive by being on a vegan diet - you have to exert far more resources to get the same gains someone that has meat in their diet does
why bother?
TarthenalToblakai t1_is516yl wrote
"while you can survive by being on a vegan diet - you have to exert far more resources to get the same gains someone that has meat in their diet does"
That isn't true in the least.
[deleted] t1_is5q9la wrote
[removed]
AgedAmbergris t1_is4kcp4 wrote
90% of diet "studies" would be ignored if people just understood the difference between relative and absolute risk.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments